![]() |
NCAA Tournament Video Requests - Sunday March 19
Please make all requests for this day here.
Peace |
Kansas vs mich st 17:54. Shooting foul. 2nd half
|
Michigan-Louisville, second half, 5:30 left. Louisville player blows a dunk but remains hanging on the rim in order to help corral the rebound.
Officials ruled BI, but nothing more. In HS, you could argue this was 10-4-4a (placing a hand on the ring to gain an advantage). Is the rule different in NCAAM, or were the officials likely going with the least disruptive call in a tight game? |
Quote:
Peace |
UNC Arkansas. 48 seconds left in 2nd. No call on block/charge
|
Arkansas/NC 2:15 of the second half. Is this not a travel you would call in a jr. high game? I thought I was seeing it called tighter this year, but......
|
TNT
North Carolina v Arkansas About 45 seconds left Block/charge/travel. #2v#2 25.2 remaining Foul or vertical defenders |
Quote:
|
PC foul 1:38 left URI/Oregon
And to clarify, I would like to see the NC State/Texas women's call with 8.4 left. |
NCAAW: Arizona State vs. SC
4th quarter 7:59. T on ASU coach. |
Quote:
|
Duke Vs South Carolina. 1:38 left. Foul on Kennard? Not understanding why Kennard was hit with a foul when he did not reach the contact seemed to be all the offensive player.
|
Duke/SC
Second half
1:56 block called 1:40-something foul called by C opposite side of court 1:01 designated spot violation and official gives travel mechanic |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Edit: Nope, just saw the video. That is the one on the endline. PC was the proper call imo. The play in thinking of occurred about a minute prior and was on a drive down the middle of the lane. 2. Tough to come that far in front of a partner for something that is debatable. 3. Surprisingly, Mike Reed is an extreme rules guy. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, what is up with Duke and throw-in violations?? :D |
Quote:
Peace |
No. The defender leaned into the shooter's path after the shooter was airborne.
|
Quote:
Second play looks like a foul on both defenders, take your pick. Neither one maintains verticality. There's nothing wrong with a double whistle on that play in the middle of the lane, especially with two defenders converging on one shooter is there? third play, is a travel in slow mo, but I certainly didn't raise an eyebrow to it live. |
Quote:
1) I like hand check on initial dribble. OK, they don't call that so, I got a block on collision. (looks as if I am in minority on that) 2) Foul on double teaming defender. Arms are angled down creating initial contact. 3) Technical travel. L cannot see ball control(up top) and feet(below) in this case. T reffing passer/defender and screened. |
Quote:
Quote:
We seem to have agreement that in HS this is a Technical, not BI. And as Johnny Ringo points out, the C does appear to be signaling a T. |
Let's Go To The Videotape ...
Quote:
It's the "Ralph Sampson Rule". https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.n...=0&w=300&h=300 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
(I did always wonder why "substitute" was needed in that article) |
Quote:
I also do not see the C giving a T signal. I think he is signalling something else related to the BI. But he goes away from the screen, so hard to ultimately tell. Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I also did not say anything about the rule differences either. I would rule it the same way in both, but not relevant to my position. If there was a rebound and the player grabbed the rim and then tried to but the ball in the basket, then I would agree. That is not really what happened here. A violation was called and basically ended the play. I do not expect you to agree, but that is what I am doing. Peace |
Quote:
Accusing someone of being overly technical as a smokescreen to not not knowing the rules is pretty sad. |
Quote:
That said ... Jeff sometimes says some things that make me scratch my head ... but I think claiming he doesn't know the rules is exceedingly inaccurate. |
I am still confused as to why a T was not called on that play. While they may have called BI, any to some it is considered BI, the actions of the shooter grabbing the rim still have TF written all over it. Just don't understand why a TF was not called and why no one, that I recall, even mentioned it.:confused:
|
Quote:
The announcers? They don't even know what basket interference is, which is what was incorrectly called here. To them, everything is "goaltending" (i.e., the Northwestern play). They certainly wouldn't know that this is actually a technical foul. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
Guess I will just take my amazement with me and after this thread, will never miss that call, lol. |
Quote:
Just because you or your local peers were confused doesn't mean the rule is confusing. |
Quote:
Because you are talking about a statement not the video that was put out, which if you were a college official for some time you would realize those Art Hyman comments are often curious to what the video suggests. But then again you are the person that said that 10-1-4 or 10-6-12 rules were always the case in the rulebook. So I guess I will consider the source. Peace |
Quote:
You seem to have trouble with words and depend on pictures to comprehend things and then still often mess them up, as evidenced here. The words are 100% clear and there is no other way to read them. If you think the videos suggested something else, perhaps it is you. But to say the words or the rule is fuzzy is nothing more than trying to avoid admitting you were wrong (again). As for 10-1-4...those have been fouls for 100 years. Just because you can't understand it doesn't change the facts. They just changed the words so that some people who had trouble understanding the rules could get it. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Heck the way post play was officiated was also something not called the way it is now. If you did, you were calling "game interrupters." But again back to what I said, you are not seeing the videos. Every NCAA video spends the first couple of minutes talking about 10-1-4. That was not the case before not matter what you say. I am also not trying to be "right." I do not care about who is right or wrong. I do not have these conversations to prove anything, but other than to have a discussion. Even the way I create the videos are to spark discussions that are often not about the rules, but about the philosophy of how you call the game. Often what is expected and what is called are not the same thing. But that is why "rulebook officials" like you are not people I like working with. You want to prove you know the rule, but do not know how the rules are to be applied or expected to be applied. And the last time I checked, I did not see you on any of these games working either. Peace |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
OK. Next!!!
Peace |
Quote:
Peace |
Here's the deal. This little feud is going to end right now or both of you will be given a little time to cool off.
Just ignore each other, please. Thread closed. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:21pm. |